Stem Cell research?

[Rafael Domination]

People may not know about this one, so I'll give a vague explaination:

Stem Cells are special cells usually most abundant on embryos. They have the ability to turn into ANY cell possible, whether it be brain or bone cells, and once they reach their assigned roles, they become permanently stuck the way they are.

Now, the controversy is whether we should go on destroying human embryos just to harvest their stem cells. People might try to use them to replace a missing limb, or heal a wound, or look for cures for certain diseases. But are we paying too great a sacrifice? Are those human babies we're depriving of a life? Or, is it alright because they haven't been born yet?

Discuss!

[Zaphkiel]

Ofcourse not!! That's worse than abortion!! Whether it's born or not, it's still a life that's being taken away.

[Rafael Domination]

I agree...if there was a way to harvest stem cells without inflicting any harm onto the embryo, I'd be all up to it, but those are humans in there...

I wonder what Shaun has to say about this...

[Shaun]

Wow, you want my opinion on this...well I'm about to shatter all of your ideals.

First off: an embryo isn't alive. It's not. It doesn't have a brain, a nervous system, a heart, lungs, arms, legs, eyes, or anything resembling anything that would otherwise be considered living in the same sense as you or I. Embryos are simply cells. That's it. Period. Nothing more. It doesn't think, it isn't conscious, it has no ability to do anything other than sit there leeching off the mother as it splits and divides slowly until some three months later it starts to actually become something. In most cases the embryo doesn't even have brain function until the 26th week of pregnancy.

That's the first part of this argument, the idea of an embryo being alive and being a life. If we are to consider an embryo living then not only do you have to persecute all people who have abortions as murderers, but you have to persecute women on a regular basis because the female body commonly rejects embryos at conception. Yes, the human body will actually reject them before they become much of anything at all. The woman may not even be aware of it. The female body also rejects embryos further along in the pregnancy, so, we have to charge these women with murder because, after all it is their fault that they didn't take care of their bodies right? You see the logical fallacy in this right? An embryo is not alive unless we want to grant the same rights to regular cells, such as your skin cell which have almost the exact same abilities as an embryo and are killed off by your body too. I am pro choice for this very reason: I refuse to persecute women for doing nothing wrong.

Now to the second part of the argument. First, they've developed new methods for getting stem cells which, if I remember correctly, reverses the growth of a cell to the stem cell stage. I could be wrong, so Imelda should jump in here. All I know about this new method is that it doesn't need embryos anymore.
Second, all those embryos that you want to save...they're going to be destroyed anyway. Yes, exactly. Do you have any idea how many donated embryos are discarded? So, we're going to 'kill these babies' anyway, why can't we derive some good from it? Do you see the hypocrisy? "You can't kill babies unless it's serving no purpose whatsoever". That's the argument. It's stupid and idiotic.

If you consider a human being to be a collection of cells that may or may not grow into anything, then I'm afraid you have a very low idea of what constitutes being human.

That's what I have to say.

[Imelda]

*Jumps in*

Shaun's right (for once). They're developing new methods to get stem cells. Of course, they're more expensive than just taking an embryo left over from IVF, which means that money which could be spent on research is actually spent getting something to do research on, which is dumb ...

And he's right about the embryos just being thrown away. I don't know about US law, but here in the UK if a woman has fertility treatment, they take a bunch of eggs, fertilise them, and then only replace a couple in her womb, leaving several spare. Now, unless the couple have had cancer or something, they can always get new eggs, and create new embryos, and that's what they do if there's a second round of treatment. The embryos from the first lot just stay in storage, or get chucked out, unless the couple sign a release form. Personally I have no problem with people saying 'uh, actually I don't want my embryos experimented on', but I don't think that should be the default response, because there are a lot of people out there who don't understand either way. Research could be carried out on those embryos, but it isn't because the parents don't really understand. So spinal injuries can't be cured yet, etc etc. Seems like a waste of a good embryo to me.

[Shaun]

It's similar in the U.S. Embryos have a shelf life by the way. That's why they get discarded. After a certain amount of time they destroy them as if you were throwing out old veggies in your fridge or bad milk. So, if we're going to destroy them anyway, why can't we do research on them?

[Tncowgirl]

ACctually it is living, the second it is conseved it is a living thing. It has it's own DNA it eat's through its mother, and ends up kicking. SO yes it is alive. And they have acctually proved that ADULT Stem Cells are better and safer then the babies and it doesn't kill anyone. So they are killing these babies for nothing. We just talked about this yesterday in Biology and this makes me wish I had paid a little more attention. But abortion is a cruel, heartless, thing to do. It is killing an innocent life, they are alive from the second they are conceved, it is easy for you to say it is alright sense you are already here and aren't in danger of having someone abort you. The only problem is they can't voice their opinion so we take them for just some mass growing in the mothers stomach. The only way they could be growing was if they were alive.

[Imelda]

It's not abortion, TN. They haven't fed yet, because they weren't implanted into a womb to have access to nutrients(embryos don't implant for 7 days after conception anyway). Scientists reckon that a lot of women get pregnant every month, but on average it takes 2 years to get pregnant and keep the baby. That's 23 embryos that never go anywhere, and it's completely natural. The woman doesn't even know it happened.

Oh, and by your reckoning, tumours are living human beings. They have their own DNA, they feed, they grow ... they actually have the capability to be immortal. Should we stop cancer treatment on those grounds?

[Tncowgirl]

No because they don't breath, they don't come out of the body and live, and do the stuff we do. It doesn't take two years to get pregnate and if they did most will keep the child, yes at time it will be still borned or something but that is because people don't take as good of care of themselves as they should.

So, when you were an embryo and IF you could talk back then, if someone was goign to harvest you for this would you protest?

[Imelda]

They don't 'harvest' embryos, they harvest ova, and then artificially inseminate them, which is entirely different.

And yes, it does take, on average, two years to get pregnant. There are statistics, go look them up.

Regarding the cancer, they can come out of the body and live, actually, at least for a short while. My great uncle was a butcher and he used to get liver on his slab that was so full of tumours that it could actually move by itself. And at the embryo stage, a tumour actually has more function than the embryo, amazingly. The embryo is a ball of cells doing very little but divide occasionally. Cancer cells are busy re-routing blood supply, becoming immortal, and all sorts of junk.

[Tncowgirl]

By dividing they grow, that is the process of producing more. Where were theses statistics taken, I know several people who got married, did not have sex out of marriage, and had a child within a year at most. Some people chose not to until they have been married for a while. There is a difference with not being able to have a kid for two years and chosing not to have a kid for two years. They have successfully used Adult Stem Cells so why use ones that kill future childeren??? It doesn't make sense. Its like cloning, which doesn't work.

[Shaun]

ACctually it is living, the second it is conseved it is a living thing. It has it's own DNA it eat's through its mother, and ends up kicking. SO yes it is alive. And they have acctually proved that ADULT Stem Cells are better and safer then the babies and it doesn't kill anyone. So they are killing these babies for nothing. We just talked about this yesterday in Biology and this makes me wish I had paid a little more attention. But abortion is a cruel, heartless, thing to do. It is killing an innocent life, they are alive from the second they are conceved, it is easy for you to say it is alright sense you are already here and aren't in danger of having someone abort you. The only problem is they can't voice their opinion so we take them for just some mass growing in the mothers stomach. The only way they could be growing was if they were alive.

Umm, quite honestly, I don't really care if I was aborted at the emryonic level. Why? Because I wasn't alive. I had no brain function and nothing to make me a living being. I have no consciousness.
The reason they have no voice is because they aren't alive. Period. They are not. Something that is alive has some sort of function beyond simply waddling around in a pool of fluid splitting and dividing. To be alive is to be aware of one's existence, even if that awareness is minor and simplistic.

On this very logic too, we run into a problem. If an embryo is living and can be considered alive, and to kill an embryo is considered murder, then also you have to consider all the following natural processes within your body murder as well:
--Egg rejection (basically when the female body actually kills the fertilized egg for whatever reason, which happens A LOT actually. You'd be surprised how often it actually happens in women. The odd thing is you don't realize it 's happening)
--Destruction of skin cells (your body kills these on a regular basis)
--Destruction of brain cells (same as above)
--Destruction of other normal human cells (same as above)
--Destruction of liver and kidney cells (as a result of things that we do normally in society that don't kill us if done moderately, but do kill some of these cells, which are regenerated anyway)
--Chemotherapy (contrary to popular belief, some cancers actually grow naturally within your body...they're called genetic cancers. Meaning, your DNA actually sits down and says "well, it's encoded, so you're going to get it". But, since cancer can kill us we have no qualms about killing cancer in return, even though, by your logic, this is also murder because a cancer cell, as Imelda said, has just as much or more function as an embryo)

I could go on, because your body is consistently killing parts of itself naturally, yet we don't consider these processes murder. Why? If a human embryo is a natural, living being, and his has just as much function in the first 3 months of its life as a skin cell, why exactly is it considered murder to kill the embryo but not the skin cell? Every time you scratch your arm or your head, you are killing part of your body.

No because they don't breath, they don't come out of the body and live, and do the stuff we do. It doesn't take two years to get pregnate and if they did most will keep the child, yes at time it will be still borned or something but that is because people don't take as good of care of themselves as they should.

An embryo doesn't breath either by the way. An embryo also doesn't come out of the body and just live. It doesn't walk, it doesn't talk, it doesn't see, it doesn't hear, it doesn't smell, it doesn't build buildings, scream, or do anything at all that we humans do. Why? Because an embryo is not a fetus. This is another common misconception. We think of embryos as these little babies, but all it is is a round blob of cells.

This is an embryo: http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/6/6b/Embryo,_8_cells.jpg

There are 23 stages in embryonic development, at the end of which the embryo becomes a fetus. A fetus, too, does not have brain function until considerably later, but if we're going to talk about embryos and the fact that they are human like, they don't begin looking even remotely animalian until day 30. But they don't start looking definitively humanoid until about day 50.

The body constantly rejects eggs for various reasons, and most of them don't have to do with the fact that someone doesn't take care of themselves. Eggs don't come out of the ovaries in perfect condition, and not all sperm come out of a man working perfectly either. Sometimes there are flaws, sometimes the conception doesn't take, sometimes the body just isn't ready for the egg, and so the body gets rid of it. It's an insult to women who have problems getting pregnant to blame it on them that they can't get pregnant. Sometimes it just takes time to get the right egg/sperm combo.

On the subject of destroying the embryos, we've discussed this already. All those embryos they have, which are nothing more than a bunch of cells like the picture I gave you, are sitting around in a lab not being used. That's right, our President cut funding and prevented scientists from doing valuable research and you know what ends up happening in his quest to save the embryos? They get destroyed because we can't keep them on the shelf forever. They either die of their own accord or we dispose of them. So rather than tossing them out like garbage, couldn't we use them to do valuable research?

I rest my case for the time being.

[Shaun]

By dividing they grow, that is the process of producing more. Where were theses statistics taken, I know several people who got married, did not have sex out of marriage, and had a child within a year at most. Some people chose not to until they have been married for a while. There is a difference with not being able to have a kid for two years and chosing not to have a kid for two years. They have successfully used Adult Stem Cells so why use ones that kill future childeren??? It doesn't make sense. Its like cloning, which doesn't work.

Skin cells do the same thing by the way. They divide and grow. So do amoeba. So, should we have a global effort to prevent all deaths of amoebas?

Sometimes people get pregnant quickly, and sometimes they don't.

They have minor success with adult stem cells by the way. The problem with using adult stem cells is that they are already partially developed and cannot be turned into any cell. Embryonic stem cells are simple in that you just give it an instruction and it turns into whatever you want. You can't do that with adult cells. Some adult cells can be brain cells, some lung cells, etc. And there's not simple way to gather them all up in one group.

They're not killing children, as I've already made clear. They're not killing future children. Those embryos are already sitting there and are not going to be used to get someone pregnant. Most of them will just be discarded. We're not out harvesting eggs all over the place. There's no egg harvesting drive like a blood drive.

Cloning does work, by the way. It's just flawed technology that people put a stop to when we figured out how to do it. So now rather than being able to use cloning for medical science we're forced to use other means. Cloning could easily be used to make replacement organs for people with diseases etc., but we stopped the technology before it could develop.

[Imelda]

By dividing they grow, that is the process of producing more. Where were theses statistics taken, I know several people who got married, did not have sex out of marriage, and had a child within a year at most. Some people chose not to until they have been married for a while. There is a difference with not being able to have a kid for two years and chosing not to have a kid for two years. They have successfully used Adult Stem Cells so why use ones that kill future childeren??? It doesn't make sense. Its like cloning, which doesn't work.

The statistics were taken by medical folks over years of data-gathering. Some people get pregnant very easily, but others take years. The average time it takes a couple to get pregnant is two years of trying. That's average, so you have plenty at less than that, and some with more. I'm not saying 'it takes two years to get pregnant', it's a statistic. The reference I have to it is on top of my wardrobe and I don't care enough to root it out. It's not a secret stat, you can look it up.

Like I said before, adult stem cells are more limited than embryonic stem cells, and they're more expensive, which takes the moeny away from where it's really needed.

[Rafael Domination]

Our body is always trying to kill parts of itself, but using those as an example to be compared to embryo cells is, again, like comparing apples and pineapples. Yes, they're cells, but none of them have the potential to become human beings, do they?

And next, the mother's womb naturally rejecting the embryo cannot be accounted as murder anyway because its a natural process. One needs to purpose and make up their minds to murder, because accidents happen, and the people who are involved in causing an accident unintentionally and without malice are not responsible for murder.

And just because those embryo's haven't reach they stage where you account them as humans, it doesn't mean they should be deprived of the chance to make their choice. You might not see anything wrong with that, but the fact is, they could grow up to become good people, and actually make a difference in the world that outlasts being used.

And I am not cheapening humans by including human embryos in their category. Beside, I thought you were all about 'just because they're different and/or lack something we have, it doesn't make them any less of a human. The president may have been wrong in some thing, but he was right in cutting funds from that kind of research. People should stick to using adult stem cells: they're given with permission and don't involve too much sacrifice.

PS> those 'donated' embryos would be wasted, so fine, people can experiment on those. It's TOO LATE to correct that mistake now, but the moment they donate NEW EMBRYOS, that's where they cross the line.

And about abortion: I would back it up...if the babies agreed to die. Unless consent is given by that individual to die, I think death should be avoided, and until that child backs up its mother. Being in the womb or being outside of it doesn't make a difference. That baby is still a helpless potential human being even if it's still not born. When it is born, and killed, it's considered murder - yet people assume that a few weeks and several inches of flesh barring it from the outside world is enough to deprive it of a life.

Edit: maybe that's what we need to pour more money from the moon missions into: improving technology to utilize non-embryo stem cells

[Imelda]

Rafael, they're ALL embryos left over from IVF, so you've just said it's ok full stop. :rolleyes:

[Rafael Domination]

Well...the leftovers might be plausible...IF there's no one to take them in...I agree that it's wasteful to just destroy them...they're going to wind up dead anyway, but they should be treated with extra respect...kinda like the frogs and mice we dissect...I would still rather avoid using humans altogether when they haven't given any consent, but when you're talking about leftovers from an attempt to give birth, then I wouldn't attack them...it's mothers who sell the embryos for money that I despise...

[Shaun]

Our body is always trying to kill parts of itself, but using those as an example to be compared to embryo cells is, again, like comparing apples and pineapples. Yes, they're cells, but none of them have the potential to become human beings, do they?

Embryos in a petri dish have no potential to become human beings either. If you put an embryo and a group of skin cells in the same dish, both would do nothing much at all other than eventually die. An embryo requires a womb to become anything, and there is no guarantee it will become anything.

And next, the mother's womb naturally rejecting the embryo cannot be accounted as murder anyway because its a natural process. One needs to purpose and make up their minds to murder, because accidents happen, and the people who are involved in causing an accident unintentionally and without malice are not responsible for murder.

Then you cannot call scientists working on embryos murderers. Why? Because when they use embryos to get stem cells they aren't doing it with malice or desire to murder. They are doing scientific research on something that is not living in the same sense as you or I, or a beetle, or an amoeba.

And just because those embryo's haven't reach they stage where you account them as humans, it doesn't mean they should be deprived of the chance to make their choice. You might not see anything wrong with that, but the fact is, they could grow up to become good people, and actually make a difference in the world that outlasts being used.

No, they can't because we DISCARD THE ONES THAT ARE USED FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH! Yes, all the embryos used would otherwise be discarded because they have died and gone bad because they have no environment to live in, or they are just old and there is no need for them anymore. By doing stem cell research on these embryos we're actually allowing scientists to get some benefit from the destruction, rather than straight up destroying the embryos and getting nothing from it. That's the one fact that puts all of your arguments down.
And by the logic that something COULD grow up to be something else, then you need to stop eating food of any form. Tomatoes could grow up to be bigger tomatoes, but you're stunting its growth by eating it now. Cows could grow up to have more cows or become bigger cows, but we kill those when they reach adulthood and eat them.
On the other side, a human being could kill another human being, but we don't make laws based on what could be. If I say I want to kill someone, it isn't the same as actually killing someone. So, by saying that a bunch of cells could become a human being doesn't mean that it will become a human being. Chances are, when someone has these embryos inserted, most of them will be rejected and destroyed.


And I am not cheapening humans by including human embryos in their category. Beside, I thought you were all about 'just because they're different and/or lack something we have, it doesn't make them any less of a human. The president may have been wrong in some thing, but he was right in cutting funds from that kind of research. People should stick to using adult stem cells: they're given with permission and don't involve too much sacrifice.

Okay, you go and tell all the people that have been hoping for a cure for cancer, Parkinson's, epilepsy, diabetes, heart disease, lung disease, liver disease, and practically every other major human condition that plagues man on a constant basis. You go tell them that "well tough crap, you can't have a cure". The fact is that adult stem cells are nearly impossible to work with. It takes a lot of time and effort to get them to do the same thing that an embryonic stem cell will do. And it's not killing. You are giving the same rights that you and I have to something that is no different than a skin cell.

PS> those 'donated' embryos would be wasted, so fine, people can experiment on those. It's TOO LATE to correct that mistake now, but the moment they donate NEW EMBRYOS, that's where they cross the line.

Umm, what? Okay, so the embryos that are going to be wasted now we can use, but when new embryos are brought in, we can't use those, even though it's basically the same thing anyway. At some point those new embryos are going to be wasted too...that logic makes no sense. You can't say "well, you can do it sometimes, but you can't use these ones". It makes no sense.

And about abortion: I would back it up...if the babies agreed to die. Unless consent is given by that individual to die, I think death should be avoided, and until that child backs up its mother. Being in the womb or being outside of it doesn't make a difference. That baby is still a helpless potential human being even if it's still not born. When it is born, and killed, it's considered murder - yet people assume that a few weeks and several inches of flesh barring it from the outside world is enough to deprive it of a life.

Edit: maybe that's what we need to pour more money from the moon missions into: improving technology to utilize non-embryo stem cells

Umm, no, we look at the fact that the 'baby', as you say, is not actually alive. There is a point during the pregnancy in which the baby acquires brain function. Meaning, at this exact point the little switch in its head goes on and it becomes aware that it exists. Before, it was a collection of cells working independently towards the same thing. When that switch goes on it's now a collection of cells making up a large body that now has some ability to understand that it exists. Embryos lack this ability because they don't have a brain, most fetuses also lack this ability because the brain is either not developed or not on. If you were to go brain dead and nothing in the world could fix your brain, you would cease to be living.
From the start of conception the embryo and eventually the fetus is nothing more than cells being controlled by a force that isn't aware. There is nothing there that can go "well, I have an appendage with these things on the end that move". It can't comprehend that thought because it can't think at all. Until it has thought it is not living. A child that is born brain dead is not a living being. It is born...dead. We don't attach machines to it and keep its heart beating for 60 years. We bury it and say it is dead.

[Rafael Domination]

Oh...come on, Shaun...there are a lot of people out there without a brain (besides me...:D) and they're allowed to live...why not these kids?

[Shaun]

Stop calling them kids. They're not children.

And it's not a matter of how you use your brain, it's a matter of whether you have one. Our President has a brain, he just doesn't use it. He's still aware that he exists though.

[Rafael Domination]

I was talking about the embryos sold by those parents just for money...the ones made illegally by some countries...I've heard it somewhere before...trying to recall where...

[Imelda]

Our President has a brain, he just doesn't use it. He's still aware that he exists though.

Unfortunately, so are the rest of us ...

[Shaun]

They're still only embryos. Not children. There's nothing wrong with being compensated for donating to medical science. Otherwise, there'd be no point in giving money to people who donate blood or do clinical tests and stuff. The goal is the same either way: something new is made that helps people.

[Carraka]

I doubt I can debate on this topic, but I thought I might say something anyway. I don't personally oppose stem cell research, especially as it can lead to cures for cancer and diabetes and other stuff. It is likely the future of medical research, assuming that it isn't halted now by the government.

What if the embryos were mine?

I don't know. I toyed once with the idea of writing a short story from the point of view of a mother that opposed stem cell research, but then I decided I wasn't qualified to play devil's advocate.

[Rafael Domination]

Blood doesn't have the ability to turn into humans when put in a womb where it belongs, Shaun. It's like donating your baby to science just because it can't decide for itself yet.

[Tncowgirl]

I am going to stop argueing this until I get more information on it, because right now most everyone is just arguing their opinions. No of us are going to change our opinions so I will try and not sever any bridge stings. I will try and get information about this and not be biased, but will not promise anything. Have fun debating :D.

[Shaun]

Blood doesn't have the ability to turn into humans when put in a womb where it belongs, Shaun. It's like donating your baby to science just because it can't decide for itself yet.

Bring me definitive, scientific proof that an embryo is actually a living, breathing human being. Until you do that, an embryo is nothing more than cells. It is not conscious, it is not alive like you or I and it cannot survive without a host (i.e. the mother). It's not a baby and you have no science to back up that it is. The fact of the matter is that life doesn't start a conception, life starts when that brain actually starts ticking. That's when life starts. Otherwise it's just another automatic function in the body. Nothing more.
You'd be surprised what blood or other cells in the human body can do. They may not turn into walking, talking humans like us, but they certainly can do a lot of things. At the embryonic stage, however, the only function the embryo has is splitting cells to create more cells that split and create more, which is not unlike other cells in the body except in this instance the embryo's extra cells don't die of 'old age'.
Brain waves and cellular functionality are the determining factors of what makes up 'conscious life', as in you or I. Science has this firmly planted and until I see something to the contrary there's nothing that can refute that other than wishy washy thinking.

[Rafael Domination]

Ah, but it's the potential I'm talking about. The potential for a sucessful life, and the potential child living in it's mother's womb (before it is ripped out of there) is deprived of such a thing. It's not fair. If you wan't to get down to biology, what is a human but mere oxygen, carbon, several amino acids in a few patterns? So what if they can think? They're merely smarter mammals. They ony ruin their planet, anyway. If an alien species came down and thought that, and decided to use us for experiments, ignoring our potential to improve and mature as a species, concentrating only on what we're currently made out off and our current brain stage, just to come up with some alien medecine, I pressume you wouldn't mind if they used you and everyone else?

[Shaun]

Ah, but it's the potential I'm talking about. The potential for a sucessful life, and the potential child living in it's mother's womb (before it is ripped out of there) is deprived of such a thing. It's not fair. If you wan't to get down to biology, what is a human but mere oxygen, carbon, several amino acids in a few patterns? So what if they can think? They're merely smarter mammals. They ony ruin their planet, anyway. If an alien species came down and thought that, and decided to use us for experiments, ignoring our potential to improve and mature as a species, concentrating only on what we're currently made out off and our current brain stage, just to come up with some alien medecine, I pressume you wouldn't mind if they used you and everyone else?

This whole argument isn't logical Raf.

To the first point: Potential for something means absolutely nothing. Human beings have the potential to murder rape, plunder, etc. But we don't make laws that persecute people for crimes they, in theory, are going to do. The same logic can be applied to embryos. They have the potential for life, but they are not guaranteed life. There is no guarantee that they will grow into a fetus and ultimately a baby. None at all, even if you put it in a mother. The chances of it working are not 100%, but a lot lower, especially if what you're doing is inserting embryos into humans, in which case they often put many of them in there in hopes of getting the patient pregnant--usually such patients have fertility problems. What happens to all the embryos that don't work out? The body destroys them. Is this wrong? It's not a natural process, yet it happens a lot.
You cannot create laws based on potential and you cannot defend something based entirely upon potential, especially as far as medical research is concerned. Cancer cells have the potential to kill you, but we don't sit around and wait for it to happen. We fight it. Stem cells, whether they be embryonic or whatever, might find a cure for diseases like cancer, but cutting funding based on ignorant ideologies isn't helping anyone, especially since nobody is harmed in the process.
To the second point: The embryos used for stem cell research are not fertilized inside the mother. They are put in a petri dish and fertilized (basically). They don't go around impregnating women and pulling out the resulting embryo. That's disgusting.
To the third point: I'm not sure why you're arguing this. First off, the difference between us and an embryo is that you and I have the ability to think and ponder our existence. We have, or at least are able to use, intelligent thought, even if that thought turns out to be stupid (President Shrub...). If aliens came here looking to use us for an experiment, it's not the same as using an embryo. We can protest, we can think about what is happening, and we have that ability. Embryos don't have that ability because they aren't living beings. They can't think about themselves or their surroundings, nor can they send signals to the mother that "hey, something is wrong" either by kicking, poking, are other methods. That doesn't make them helpless babies. What that makes them, because of the lack of brain activity, is cells. Simple cells with practically no function.
Aliens would not look at us and go "well it's okay to use them because they're not alive", since clearly we are alive. It doesn't matter how advanced they are. It would still be wrong for aliens to use us for medical science. But it's not wrong to use embryos because nobody is being hurt.

[Rafael Domination]

To the first point: Potential for something means absolutely nothing. Human beings have the potential to murder rape, plunder, etc. But we don't make laws that persecute people for crimes they, in theory, are going to do.


I wasn't refering to negative potential. I was refering to positive potential- which does matter, and everyday we send students to schools prove that.


They have the potential for life, but they are not guaranteed life. There is no guarantee that they will grow into a fetus and ultimately a baby.


Babies also have no ability to protest, think for themselves or have a 100% survival rate even in advanced societies. Yet, we aren't allowed to use them for research...

You cannot create laws based on potential and you cannot defend something based entirely upon potential, especially as far as medical research is concerned.

And you cannot deprive them of that either. It's unfair. Besides, laws ARE made in the hope that human beings would potentially advance as a species. If that potential didn't exist, then laws would be useless, because we would be stuck as demonic animals that do not deserve safeguards, instructions and order, and therefore, we wouldn't need laws. Laws were made to ensure that the part of society that has the POTENTIAL to improve can go on and improve.

Cancer cells have the potential to kill you, but we don't sit around and wait for it to happen. We fight it

Again...a very bad example. I was talking about positve potential that didn't come at too high a cost.

The embryos used for stem cell research are not fertilized inside the mother. They are put in a petri dish and fertilized (basically)

I was talking about the countries where people have sex and donate their embryos just for money. Now that you've made it clear that pulling embryo's off their mothers are disgusting, I can lay this point to rest.

I'm not sure why you're arguing this. First off, the difference between us and an embryo is that you and I have the ability to think and ponder our existence

Irrelevant. Thoughts are just thoughts. Emotions are just chemical reactions set off by the body. They may seem special but it is just an illusion made up by a desperate humanity to feel like something else besides bags of sentient oxygen, carbon and hydrogen. Do you see what I mean? If you look upon it at merely a biological level, thoughts and emotions don't matter. We're merely just extra-smart animals. This is what happens when nothing, including human life, even though it hasn't been born, becomes sacred anymore.

Embryos don't have that ability because they aren't living beings

Requirments for things to be classifed as alive (excuse me if I cannibalize bits of the cell theory): all living beings are made up of at least one or more cells. All living beings take in nutrients and expell wastes, undergo metabollic reactions etc. All living things grow and develop. All living things respond to their environment. The cells of those living things must come from pre-existing cells. I know I've missed a few, but I've mentioned enough. Now...as for embryos...check, check, check, check, and check...

Embryos don't have that ability

So, they're merely underdeveloped babies. They're still babies. Is it illegal to muder babies? Yes? But they can't do anything. They can't protest. So what if they're a few weeks older?

Simple cells with practically no function

Cells with potential to become a human. Do not cheapen embryos. You were one too.

It would still be wrong for aliens to use us for medical science

What's stopping them? They've obviously a more powerful race that could decimate us in seconds. In fact, if the abduction stories are true - which I don't think they are - then they may have already begun experimenting on us. Does it make it right for us? NO. Does it make it right for them? Yes. We're merely a bunch of bipedal bags of flesh and bone that are powerless to stop them. We cannot reason on their level, so that makes us inferior to them: mere cells to be harvested for the greater good. Age doesn't matter. Thoughts don't matter. Cells are cells. That's what embryos are. Cells. So are we. Zero brain activity versus 100% brain activity that is wasted anyway by being spent on bickering. There really isn't much of a difference in value.

But it's not wrong to use embryos because nobody is being hurt.

Nobody's being hurt. Morals are being destroyed. Potential is wasted, whether the embryos are used or not. Some wounds are invisible and reach deeper into society than people think.

In short, embryos ripped from mothers may not account for murder, but it's getting rather close. While it would be a shame to let already fertilized embryos to be wasted (yes. they're there already, nothing people can do about it, ergo I will not critisize scientists for their actions for using them) scientists should still try to look for ways that don't invlove as much experienting on humans and scrap stem cell research should that situation arise. Its like finsing an alternative energy source besides oil. If that other source is efficient, and involves less damage to anyting, than using oil as energy should die out soon. Otherwise, it becomes intentional, and that makes it wrong...

[Shaun]

I wasn't refering to negative potential. I was refering to positive potential- which does matter, and everyday we send students to schools prove that.

It doesn't matter what the potential is. The concept is still the same.

Babies also have no ability to protest, think for themselves or have a 100% survival rate even in advanced societies. Yet, we aren't allowed to use them for research...

Actually they do. Babies think, they react, and they can communicate. The difference is that we don't really understand what they are saying. It's like having someone who speaks a different language screaming at you. You'll have no idea what they are saying. Babies are living, breathing human beings with consciousness and brain activity.

And you cannot deprive them of that either. It's unfair. Besides, laws ARE made in the hope that human beings would potentially advance as a species. If that potential didn't exist, then laws would be useless, because we would be stuck as demonic animals that do not deserve safeguards, instructions and order, and therefore, we wouldn't need laws. Laws were made to ensure that the part of society that has the POTENTIAL to improve can go on and improve.

You're not depriving embryos from anything. That's the part you're not getting. The embryos that are used are extras. They're unwanted embryos that are either going to be destroyed by a human being or destroyed when they are recycled. So, basically, if we don't use them to try to learn things that will help sick people get better to improve their POTENTIAL, then they are going to waste. And as I keep telling you...there is no scientific evidence that supports the claim that an embryo is a living human being. It's a collection of cells. That's it.

Again...a very bad example. I was talking about positve potential that didn't come at too high a cost.

The cost you are suggesting is wasting perfectly good embryos rather than using them to find cures for diseases that kill millions of human beings every day.

I was talking about the countries where people have sex and donate their embryos just for money. Now that you've made it clear that pulling embryo's off their mothers are disgusting, I can lay this point to rest.

As far as I know the countries that matter don't do this. We're talking about the U.S. anyway, not the third world or anything like that.

Irrelevant. Thoughts are just thoughts. Emotions are just chemical reactions set off by the body. They may seem special but it is just an illusion made up by a desperate humanity to feel like something else besides bags of sentient oxygen, carbon and hydrogen. Do you see what I mean? If you look upon it at merely a biological level, thoughts and emotions don't matter. We're merely just extra-smart animals. This is what happens when nothing, including human life, even though it hasn't been born, becomes sacred anymore.

? This argument doesn't make any sense. Placing higher value on the brain, which is where all thoughts, all emotions, all everything are register, the place where everything in the human body and psyche is centered, life itself doesn't become any less sacred. You have to think on a biological level, else we make stupid laws based on faulty, ignorant science like in the middle ages. Emotions are based on biological impulses, but that doesn't make them any less important. Why is there this negative association with biology? We're lucky to be able to feel these impulses. We're lucky to be able to think, to contemplate our existence, etc. Placing higher importance on the fact that we have the biological capability to register all this doesn't degrade the value of life one bit.

Requirments for things to be classifed as alive (excuse me if I cannibalize bits of the cell theory): all living beings are made up of at least one or more cells. All living beings take in nutrients and expell wastes, undergo metabollic reactions etc. All living things grow and develop. All living things respond to their environment. The cells of those living things must come from pre-existing cells. I know I've missed a few, but I've mentioned enough. Now...as for embryos...check, check, check, check, and check...

Wow, okay, cancer cells...check check check. Now as a cancer survivor I take insult in the fact that you have just given what could also be a valid argument to protect cancer cells, which do all of the above, and are also from the human body. So, no more chemo.
You also, by the way, missed the part about reproduction. Embryos don't leave copies of themselves, nor can they have sex, or do anything else that allows it to create new life.
But, in your argument you also have to take into account that if an embryo is alive and is the same as a human being, then the importance of being human is next to nil. I'm more valuable than an embryo because I am a living, thinking, breathing, reproducing organism. An embryo lacks anything beyond simple biological processes, the same processes granted to other cells too.

So, they're merely underdeveloped babies. They're still babies. Is it illegal to muder babies? Yes? But they can't do anything. They can't protest. So what if they're a few weeks older?

It's illegal to murder people. Babies are people. Embryos aren't. It cannot respond to outside stimuli like fetuses 26 weeks old.

Cells with potential to become a human. Do not cheapen embryos. You were one too.

Embryos hold no value to me. I don't care that I was one once. As an embryo I had nothing more than the potential to be something else. It wasn't like someone waited until I was born and then they cut me up. No, if I were an embryo it wouldn't matter what happened to me. I wouldn't know it because I wouldn't exist. You're using personal opinion to run an argument, not science.

What's stopping them? They've obviously a more powerful race that could decimate us in seconds. In fact, if the abduction stories are true - which I don't think they are - then they may have already begun experimenting on us. Does it make it right for us? NO. Does it make it right for them? Yes. We're merely a bunch of bipedal bags of flesh and bone that are powerless to stop them. We cannot reason on their level, so that makes us inferior to them: mere cells to be harvested for the greater good. Age doesn't matter. Thoughts don't matter. Cells are cells. That's what embryos are. Cells. So are we. Zero brain activity versus 100% brain activity that is wasted anyway by being spent on bickering. There really isn't much of a difference in value.

You realize this argument makes no sense at all right? No alien species, no matter how complex, would come to Earth and say that we are incapable of thought. That would be absurd, especially since you could cut open our heads and see that bulbous organ called the brain.
An embryo doesn't have a brain. It doesn't have thought. You're making a ridiculous comparison that makes no sense. All our technology would be examples of human intelligence. Just because we don't think on the same level doesn't mean that such a species would recognize us as creatures without thought. If they were to destroy us for medical testing, which also wouldn't make sense biologically, it wouldn't be remotely the same as us using embryos. Not even close.

Nobody's being hurt. Morals are being destroyed. Potential is wasted, whether the embryos are used or not. Some wounds are invisible and reach deeper into society than people think.

Umm, no, Christian morals are being destroyed, as they should be. Sorry, your morals are founded in religion, which has no business determining the direction of science or politics. In fact, it's written in our constitution that religion cannot be used in politics.
It also take offense to that statement. I am not an immoral person because I support stem cell research. I simply recognize that science has more value than religion.

In short, embryos ripped from mothers may not account for murder, but it's getting rather close. While it would be a shame to let already fertilized embryos to be wasted (yes. they're there already, nothing people can do about it, ergo I will not critisize scientists for their actions for using them) scientists should still try to look for ways that don't invlove as much experienting on humans and scrap stem cell research should that situation arise. Its like finsing an alternative energy source besides oil. If that other source is efficient, and involves less damage to anyting, than using oil as energy should die out soon. Otherwise, it becomes intentional, and that makes it wrong...

They embryos aren't ripped from the mothers, they are given willingly as Imelda said. And it's not murder since it never becomes anything. It's not a human being.
There's no way to do medical research on things that involve humans without doing testing on humans. Someone has to be a guinea pig eventually. You realize that right? That's what clinical trials and tests are for--using humans to test new medicines.
Embryos, again, are not humans, they are human, but not humans. Science supports this once again. To be a human you have to have consciousness and brain activity, within a human body. Embryos from a human aren't humans, just human. That's it. They share common DNA, but, again, I'm not going to reiterate this point anymore, they are not the same as you or I.

[Shaun]

To add, here is what science says constitutes being human as far as embryos are concerned:

"The Catholic Church states that a state of humanity is from the moment of fertilisation, but science dictates that the first vestige of humanity does not reveal itself until day 14. The fact is that the human embryos used (usually 5-7 days after fertilisation) are not humans, they are human cells. Cells are the microscopic building blocks that make up tissues and organs (like the brain and liver). These in turn make up humans. But the embryo is no more a human (that is, a human being or person) than a skin cell is."

[Rafael Domination]

It doesn't matter what the potential is. The concept is still the same.

The concept may be the same, but the results are different.

Actually they do. Babies think, they react, and they can communicate. The difference is that we don't really understand what they are saying. It's like having someone who speaks a different language screaming at you. You'll have no idea what they are saying. Babies are living, breathing human beings with consciousness and brain activity.

But they are still incapable of making their own choices. A difference in intellect level and number of cells does not decide at what level does it become human. Otherwise, if that's what really counts, then some peole really shouldn't be alive today...

You're not depriving embryos from anything. That's the part you're not getting. The embryos that are used are extras. They're unwanted embryos that are either going to be destroyed by a human being or destroyed when they are recycled. So, basically, if we don't use them to try to learn things that will help sick people get better to improve their POTENTIAL, then they are going to waste. And as I keep telling you...there is no scientific evidence that supports the claim that an embryo is a living human being.

As I mentioned in my last point - yes, they're there, and it would be insulting to them to be wasted and thrown away. The scientists might as well make that sacrifice worth somthing more.

It's a collection of cells. That's it.

Adding thought and emotions to a mere collection of cells makes something a human? If that's all a human is, then they rally are no better off than embryos. Thoughts and emotions mean nothing without the basic biological levels and aspects of life...

This argument doesn't make any sense. Placing higher value on the brain, which is where all thoughts, all emotions, all everything are register, the place where everything in the human body and psyche is centered, life itself doesn't become any less sacred. You have to think on a biological level, else we make stupid laws based on faulty, ignorant science like in the middle ages. Emotions are based on biological impulses, but that doesn't make them any less important. Why is there this negative association with biology? We're lucky to be able to feel these impulses. We're lucky to be able to think, to contemplate our existence, etc. Placing higher importance on the fact that we have the biological capability to register all this doesn't degrade the value of life one bit.

Maybe you just breezed through it. I never said placing importance on it was degrading to life. It's just too often that people get caught up in trying fool themselves into thinking that something is right, and going along with what the majority say, that they forget and ignore the basic aspects of life...what cells we came from and such.

Wow, okay, cancer cells...check check check. Now as a cancer survivor I take insult in the fact that you have just given what could also be a valid argument to protect cancer cells, which do all of the above, and are also from the human body. So, no more chemo.
You also, by the way, missed the part about reproduction. Embryos don't leave copies of themselves, nor can they have sex, or do anything else that allows it to create new life.
But, in your argument you also have to take into account that if an embryo is alive and is the same as a human being, then the importance of being human is next to nil. I'm more valuable than an embryo because I am a living, thinking, breathing, reproducing organism. An embryo lacks anything beyond simple biological processes, the same processes granted to other cells too.

I suppose it was an embryo that was eating your cells. Cancer isn't something we cause to happen on purpose...and in which case, if you did cause it on purpose then you probably deserve it. It just sneaks up on you and makes your life a living hell. Embryos don't.

Edit: I never intended to insult you, the same way you did about my morals. I simply thought a guy with your caliber would be able to spot the difference between a cancer and embryo cell, but I guess I have to explain it to you too. Matter of fact is, I'm rather glad you survived - who else is going to stimulate my mind like this :P ?

It's illegal to murder people. Babies are people. Embryos aren't. It cannot respond to outside stimuli like fetuses 26 weeks old

A lot of people are vegetating and cannot respond to stimuli, etc. Yet, you don't see their plud being pulled. If any experimenting should be done, it should be done on them...they've lived their life...the child the embryo would have been hasn't

Embryos hold no value to me. I don't care that I was one once. As an embryo I had nothing more than the potential to be something else. It wasn't like someone waited until I was born and then they cut me up. No, if I were an embryo it wouldn't matter what happened to me. I wouldn't know it because I wouldn't exist. You're using personal opinion to run an argument, not science.

In which case you place no value on your life whatsoever...it also wouldn't matter to a baby, by the way...but both situations matter to people who would care whether you lived or died as an embryo or baby or adult.

You realize this argument makes no sense at all right? No alien species, no matter how complex, would come to Earth and say that we are incapable of thoughtI never said that. That would be absurd, especially since you could cut open our heads and see that bulbous organ called the brain.
An embryo doesn't have a brain. It doesn't have thought. You're making a ridiculous comparison that makes no sense. All our technology would be examples of human intelligence. Just because we don't think on the same level doesn't mean that such a species would recognize us as creatures without thought. If they were to destroy us for medical testing, which also wouldn't make sense biologically, it wouldn't be remotely the same as us using embryos. Not even close.

I never said they wouldn't recognize us as creatures without thought. I just said our reason for using embryos should give them reasons to use us like the very 'cells' we used, since out level isn't as high as theirs. And yes, it's remotely the same: It's a higeher level of organism taking advantage of a lower level or organism that can't do squat to stop whoever is using them...sound familiar?

Umm, no, Christian morals are being destroyed, as they should be. Sorry, your morals are founded in religion, which has no business determining the direction of science or politics. In fact, it's written in our constitution that religion cannot be used in politics.
It also take offense to that statement. I am not an immoral person because I support stem cell research. I simply recognize that science has more value than religion.

Have you ever used an embryo? No? Then that statement does not apply to you. And as for the christian morals...what doyou think brought America to the level it reached before it's citizens got too smart-ass for their own good? I don't think the statement 'In God we Trust' rings a bell? Maybe not for your generation, but without the generation that had those morals, yours wouldn't be here to smash them...as it should have been.

They embryos aren't ripped from the mothers, they are given willingly as Imelda said. And it's not murder since it never becomes anything. It's not a human being.
There's no way to do medical research on things that involve humans without doing testing on humans. Someone has to be a guinea pig eventually. You realize that right? That's what clinical trials and tests are for--using humans to test new medicines.
Embryos, again, are not humans, they are human, but not humans. Science supports this once again. To be a human you have to have consciousness and brain activity, within a human body. Embryos from a human aren't humans, just human. That's it. They share common DNA, but, again, I'm not going to reiterate this point anymore, they are not the same as you or I.

Who are you trying to convince? ... Me?

...Or yourself?


While I admit that human testing is alright to some extent, I do believe none of them have died today as a sacrifice, have they? Besides, even if the embryos are just 'human', that is, technically degrading what's 'human' due to the fact you just said that they are 'human' and they were sold just like that. They may not be fully developed, but I guess it's back to the topic of potential

"The Catholic Church states that a state of humanity is from the moment of fertilisation, but science dictates that the first vestige of humanity does not reveal itself until day 14. The fact is that the human embryos used (usually 5-7 days after fertilisation) are not humans, they are human cells. Cells are the microscopic building blocks that make up tissues and organs (like the brain and liver). These in turn make up humans. But the embryo is no more a human (that is, a human being or person) than a skin cell is."

I would go to the topic of souls, but I guess it's useless to point that out to scientists who lack them...

BTW: I'm not catholic, I really can't relate...

[Shaun]

But they are still incapable of making their own choices. A difference in intellect level and number of cells does not decide at what level does it become human. Otherwise, if that's what really counts, then some peole really shouldn't be alive today...

Yes, actually it is a determining factor in what makes you human. A baby can still make their own choices. It just lacks many of the motor functions to enact them all.

Adding thought and emotions to a mere collection of cells makes something a human? If that's all a human is, then they rally are no better off than embryos. Thoughts and emotions mean nothing without the basic biological levels and aspects of life...

We are better than embryos because we're alive. That's the whole point. It's a mere collection of cells without anything that makes it a human being. It is, by default, not different than a skin cell, a liver cell, a brain cell, etc.

Maybe you just breezed through it. I never said placing importance on it was degrading to life. It's just too often that people get caught up in trying fool themselves into thinking that something is right, and going along with what the majority say, that they forget and ignore the basic aspects of life...what cells we came from and such.

No, people get caught up in what is scientifically proven to be true. There is no valid science that would suggest a one day old embryo is a human being.
Where cells came from is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we stop putting such important on something that doesn't matter. Babies are still going to be born even if we're using embryos to conduct experiments.

Edit: I never intended to insult you, the same way you did about my morals. I simply thought a guy with your caliber would be able to spot the difference between a cancer and embryo cell, but I guess I have to explain it to you too. Matter of fact is, I'm rather glad you survived - who else is going to stimulate my mind like this :P ?

There isn't a difference between cancer cells and an embryo except the end result. Cancer cells are GUARANTEED to kill you if you don't do anything about. An embryo isn't guaranteed to do anything. It MAY become something, or it may be discarded and destroyed.

A lot of people are vegetating and cannot respond to stimuli, etc. Yet, you don't see their plud being pulled. If any experimenting should be done, it should be done on them...they've lived their life...the child the embryo would have been hasn't

Actually, we do pull the plugs on these people. What happens to stop that is that people who should mind their own business jump in and prevent loved ones from letting go of whoever is in a vegetative state, causing further stress on the family. If someone is not coming back from being a vegetable, then they aren't alive anymore. They are gone and dead, period. Hence why brain function has such importance in determining if something is alive.
If a baby is born brain dead, is it still living? No. It's dead.
Again, the embryo isn't guaranteed to be a child. It's like the stock market. If you invest there is no guarantee you'll make money.

In which case you place no value on your life whatsoever...it also wouldn't matter to a baby, by the way...but both situations matter to people who would care whether you lived or died as an embryo or baby or adult.



I never said they wouldn't recognize us as creatures without thought. I just said our reason for using embryos should give them reasons to use us like the very 'cells' we used, since out level isn't as high as theirs. And yes, it's remotely the same: It's a higeher level of organism taking advantage of a lower level or organism that can't do squat to stop whoever is using them...sound familiar?

Umm, it's still an illogical argument. You're comparing embryos/humans to humans/aliens and it doesn't work because the latter is still two intelligent species. The embryo is not the same. Not even close. You're talking about a couple of little cells that have no thought processes, etc. Humans have thought and while our actions might be useless, we could still fight and voice our opinions.

Have you ever used an embryo? No? Then that statement does not apply to you. And as for the christian morals...what doyou think brought America to the level it reached before it's citizens got too smart-ass for their own good? I don't think the statement 'In God we Trust' rings a bell? Maybe not for your generation, but without the generation that had those morals, yours wouldn't be here to smash them...as it should have been.

I really don't care what the start of this country was. There is still a separation of church and state.
First off, I don't adhere to Christian morals and I will never be part of organized religion because for as much good as it does, it does twice as much evil. Remember, the same people who came and founded this country also committed genocide on the Native Americans, so if you want to align yourself with that line of thinking, go for it. You think too highly of the Christian past. The fact of the matter is that the found fathers were all slave owners and had no qualms about destroying Native Americans for their own benefit. What kind of morals are those?
Morals are not determined by religion, they are determined by the masses, and todays morals are simply an evolution of thought. That's all. Stop using your personal arguments as a basis for shooting down stem cell research. It doesn't represent a valid argument. It's the same argument used to keep gays from being like everyone else, the same argument that made blacks slaves and kept them oppressed until the Civil Rights Movement. It's the same argument used to kill Native Americans, to subjugate women, etc. From those examples you can see why personal arguments don't work and while religious morals have to taken with a grain of salt.

While I admit that human testing is alright to some extent, I do believe none of them have died today as a sacrifice, have they? Besides, even if the embryos are just 'human', that is, technically degrading what's 'human' due to the fact you just said that they are 'human' and they were sold just like that. They may not be fully developed, but I guess it's back to the topic of potential

Invalid argument again. You cannot base policy upon potential. We've been through this.

I would go to the topic of souls, but I guess it's useless to point that out to scientists who lack them...

BTW: I'm not catholic, I really can't relate...

Yes, let's attack scientists as being immoral human beings. That's a great, logical way to approach this subject. You realize a lot of scientists are religious right? They just have the mental foresight to see the difference between an embryo and a human being. Science really isn't all that complicated.

[Rafael Domination]

We are better than embryos because we're alive. That's the whole point. It's a mere collection of cells without anything that makes it a human being. It is, by default, not different than a skin cell, a liver cell, a brain cell, etc.


Potential. I will keep going on this topic until you see its value.


No, people get caught up in what is scientifically proven to be true. There is no valid science that would suggest a one day old embryo is a human being.


Neither is there any scientific proof that the humans as a species will progress...yet, we still give each other a chance.

Umm, it's still an illogical argument. You're comparing embryos/humans to humans/aliens and it doesn't work because the latter is still two intelligent species. The embryo is not the same. Not even close. You're talking about a couple of little cells that have no thought processes, etc. Humans have thought and while our actions might be useless, we could still fight and voice our opinions.

I was going with the fact that in both situations, one level is transcendantly higher and that one is using the low status of the other to justify using the lower beings as experiments. We don't care that the embryos might be humans. The aliens shouldn't care that we will voice our opinions. It's user and the used. It all boild down to that.

You think too highly of the Christian past. The fact of the matter is that the found fathers were all slave owners and had no qualms about destroying Native Americans for their own benefit. What kind of morals are those?


You think too low of it. The part that they were slave owner is wrong, yes, but that has nothing to do with christian morals whatsoever. I admit that there is no such thing as a perfect christian, but before you go on pointing fingers at us for being evil, I will return the favor by pointing at Hitler, Stalin and all the other idiots who did not beleive in God, for doing a billions times as much evilas they have done good.

Morals are not determined by religion, they are determined by the masses, and todays morals are simply an evolution of thought.

Masses with their own personal opinons. Masses with individuals in them that are too chicken to stand out of the crowd and are swallowed by it due to the fact that they're afraid to be rejected. Some people think their thoughts are evolving when in fact, they're only intergrating it into some mindless collective out of cowardice.

There are individuals out there who have made a difference before masses back them up. I'd list a few, but that would be too tedious...I am in High School, after all...

Invalid argument again. You cannot base policy upon potential. We've been through this.

Then your college professors should stop teaching you. You're parents should stop funding your college fees, if they do. You really should stop studying. Your POTENTIAL to graduate is now compromised and invalid. The 'poilcies' and hopes of these people mean nothing, and therefore, they should just quit their jobs.

If potential is so irrelevant, then why do scientists still rish their ethics for stem cells? It hasn't cured anything yet,. It 'holds' the potential to. With lots of side-effects...

Education is based on the potential that kids can be taught properly. Not all of them succeed, bu do we stop? No. Laws are made with the potential that people will follow them for their own good. Does it always work? No. But yet we try to enforce them. Potential does, and always will, hold value.

Yes, let's attack scientists as being immoral human beings. That's a great, logical way to approach this subject. You realize a lot of scientists are religious right? They just have the mental foresight to see the difference between an embryo and a human being. Science really isn't all that complicated.

If scence really is so simple, then why do those 'clever' scientists keep trying to use embryos when beter and alternative sources have been found? Technology (being further developed) now exists that can reverse adult cells into stem cells with a relatively low cost. Instead of using thousands upon thousands of embryos, we can use one and clone its flesh. Adult cell 'reprograming' also exists. Using the umbillical cord stem cells has been shown to be as verstile as embryonic stem cells. Yet these scientists keep on using embryos. Why. Because they're lazy, or just plain ignorant of the fact that the EMBYRONIC stem cells they want to use to treat cancer patients, alhzeimer's, and hepatitis are just as suceptible to developing tumors and mutations when given to the patient, as well as rejection, when given to patients. Reprogramed cells or adult stem cells have low chances of that. Yet those scientists refuse that knoweledge and justify what they're doing?

[Shaun]

Potential. I will keep going on this topic until you see its value.
Neither is there any scientific proof that the humans as a species will progress...yet, we still give each other a chance.

To the first: human beings aren't recognized by what they could do, but by what they actually do. Has been that way since the dawn of time. Nobody runs around going "well he's awesome because he could be President", well, maybe they do, but they certainly have no validity until such a person succeeds in doing something. If they prove to not do something they are forgotten.
To the second: Actually, there is. Sickle cell was mankind's answer to malaria. Few people get the double recessive, and those that do don't live to breed. So the result is that most people end up having both dominant traits, which doesn't give them immunity, and some people get the dominant and recessive, which makes them immune to malaria. That's an evolutionary example of the advancement of the species. There are numerous examples of human development since the time of the Cro Magnon. It's there. Look for it. But we don't base policies or base our lives on what we might become, we base it on what we actually are. People are not going around saying "in five million years we might become a new, better human, so we should do this and that, blah blah".

I was going with the fact that in both situations, one level is transcendantly higher and that one is using the low status of the other to justify using the lower beings as experiments. We don't care that the embryos might be humans. The aliens shouldn't care that we will voice our opinions. It's user and the used. It all boild down to that.

The argument is pointless. You can keep arguing it, but it doesn't make sense in this context. It is irrelevant if the aliens listen to our complaints in your example. We can still make the complaints because we are sentient.
And no, we don't care at all about what something might become. Nobody cares about John Kerry anymore, and he had a shot to be President.

You think too low of it. The part that they were slave owner is wrong, yes, but that has nothing to do with christian morals whatsoever. I admit that there is no such thing as a perfect christian, but before you go on pointing fingers at us for being evil, I will return the favor by pointing at Hitler, Stalin and all the other idiots who did not beleive in God, for doing a billions times as much evilas they have done good.
Masses with their own personal opinons. Masses with individuals in them that are too chicken to stand out of the crowd and are swallowed by it due to the fact that they're afraid to be rejected. Some people think their thoughts are evolving when in fact, they're only intergrating it into some mindless collective out of cowardice.

Umm, actually they are directly related to Christian morals of the time.
By the way, Hitler was a Catholic and Stalin was a Georgian Orthodox, although he was expelled from the Church for promoting Marxism, not because of what he eventually did. So, bad examples which actually refutes your argument. And, since the Bible was used as a basis for enslaving blacks, and as a reason as to why the White race was superior to all others and should be in complete control...well, the point is clear. I'm pointing at the fact that Christian morals are outdated and often ignorant and wrong, and it's often stretched and manipulated as the Church sees fit. The Bible, sadly, is like the Wikipedia of religion, except there isn't anyone to fix mistakes that are made when things are changed.

And you're rather harsh on the masses when that exact argument can be used against religion over and over and over again. The Church, after all, is responsible for condoning acts of genocide and oppression and such things were accepted by the masses as being justified by the Bible.
If you want to pull religion into this I can very well tear the very fabric of religion to the ground because I have no qualms pointing out that religion has been responsible for the majority of all violent and disgusting acts in the history of mankind.
On the subject of morals, just because things are changing doesn't make people brainless. You realize that 100 years ago it was wrong for a woman to expose any part of herself except her arms and the very bottoms of her legs. That's in America mind you. They also couldn't vote, because they were considered inferior based on religious ideals, and were not allowed to have education, all because of morals. Now morals allow women to hold jobs in the highest positions, to live on their own, to use birth control, and to otherwise have control of their lives rather than being at the beck and call of a man. They can also be gay and not be slaughtered and we're not burning them because we think they are witches for preaching different ideals.
On the subject of language in morals, one has to look at how slang has changed. 60 years ago the word "hell" and "damn" would have been considered curse words as bad as "fuck" and "shit" and "bitch". Now, you hear those words and you realize "they're not really that bad". In another 60 years the word "fuck" might have little meaning whatsoever. That isn't a bad thing. The fact that we place such importance on a word is idiotic at best. It's a word, not an ideal.

I will concede that potential in certain stages might be valuable, perhaps in science most of all if we want to consider it a field of potential, but you can't apply the same thinking to something when science basically says "nope". The fact is, those embryos WON'T become anything without a womb. Period. Whether they could be something doesn't matter, because unless you want to go around impregnating millions of women with banked embryos it's not going to happen. Your take on potential is far too broad though, and it points in directions that make no sense scientifically.

If scence really is so simple, then why do those 'clever' scientists keep trying to use embryos when beter and alternative sources have been found? Technology (being further developed) now exists that can reverse adult cells into stem cells with a relatively low cost. Instead of using thousands upon thousands of embryos, we can use one and clone its flesh. Adult cell 'reprograming' also exists. Using the umbillical cord stem cells has been shown to be as verstile as embryonic stem cells. Yet these scientists keep on using embryos. Why. Because they're lazy, or just plain ignorant of the fact that the EMBYRONIC stem cells they want to use to treat cancer patients, alhzeimer's, and hepatitis are just as suceptible to developing tumors and mutations when given to the patient, as well as rejection, when given to patients. Reprogramed cells or adult stem cells have low chances of that. Yet those scientists refuse that knoweledge and justify what they're doing?

Well this has all been addressed before, but you must have missed that. There are NO other methods that can produce the same results as embryonic stem cells. Scientists are thinking in realistic terms here.
Pretty much all of this part of your post needs complete reworking in the thought section.
Technology now exists that "CAN" do something with adult cells, but it is still more expensive than embryonic processes, and not perfected, which makes it a science that needs further development before being applied across the board. The problem with adult cells is that they can't be turned into ANYTHING, only certain cells. An adult skin cell can become a stem cell that will produce only skin cells, not all cells. Embryonic cells can be used to basically do anything.
Also, all those little embryos, again, are going to be discarded anyway. It's an easier process to use embryos, and it doesn't actually hurt anybody at all. Nobody gets killed. Contrary to what you might believe, science is right on this point. Personal opinion is irrelevant when it threatens to stamp out science.
The umbilical cord may have more features than adult cells, but not the same as embryonic, and umbilical cords are hard to come by. They aren't like embryos which can be cultivated in a lab and reproduced over and over.
If anything, the scientists working with stem cells are geniuses for realizing that embryos are an easier way of getting the desired results. Adult cells haven't been used much in medical applications, and neither have embryonic cells, and both have the same flaws. Scientists aren't refusing knowledge, ignorant religious people are. Whenever science proves something and is irrefutable, religious folks have a fit. Evolution has been proven over and over again to be a viable theory, since we can watch it occur in live action. It just needs sprucing up. Yet religious people feel threatened by it and attempt to stamp it out, which is what religions do, stamp out knowledge. The Church has been doing that since its inception.
Scientists are simply smart enough to know where the best route is.

Besides, we brought all these technology on ourselves by banning the ability for scientists to devise methods to use cloning technology to find medical cures. Since we can't do anything with that technology, the applications of which had been proven, scientists moved their focus to stem cells, which is the next best thing, and once again religion is trying to stamp out knowledge. Yes, religion is doing it since religious people are the prime opponents to stem cell research, albeit for reasons that are not scientifically sound. This is like listening to creationists try to prove how dinosaurs and man lived together.

[Rafael Domination]

Dear me, this is probably the most epic debate on this site, yet! :D

[Steak-Ums]

It's all over now guys....
They've figured out how to use skin cells instead, so the CC is okay with it.

[Shaun]

The applications of skin cells are still in the works. The good news is that the idiots of our government will eventually be unable to refute the use of stem cell research, but until this new method, which they just recently announced, is perfected we still need embryonic stem cell research.

[Imelda]

And like I keep saying in pretty much EVERY POST: :rolleyes: It's WAY more expensive to culture cells like that. At the point we're at, we can't afford to be throwing perfectly good embryos away while cultivating skin cells at enormous cost. Develop skin cells till they're almost as cheap, sure, but you can't just rely on them at this point in time.